Argument Reasoning Comprehension (ARCT)

# Argument Reasoning Comprehension Task (ARCT)
# Based on Habernal et al., NAACL 2018 / SemEval 2018 Task 12
# Paper: https://aclanthology.org/N18-1175/
# Dataset: https://github.com/UKPLab/argument-reasoning-comprehension-task
#
# Arguments have three components:
# - Claim: The conclusion being argued for
# - Premise (Reason): Evidence or reasoning supporting the claim
# - Warrant: The implicit assumption connecting premise to claim
#
# Example:
# Claim: "We should ban plastic bags"
# Premise: "Plastic bags pollute the ocean"
# Warrant: "Things that pollute the ocean should be banned" (implicit!)
#
# Task:
# Given a claim and premise, identify which of two possible warrants
# correctly connects them. Both warrants are plausible but lead to
# different conclusions.
#
# Annotation Guidelines:
# 1. Read the claim and premise carefully
# 2. Identify what assumption would make the argument valid
# 3. Choose the warrant that, combined with the premise, supports the claim
# 4. The other warrant should lead to a CONTRADICTING claim
# 5. Consider logical coherence, not personal opinion

annotation_task_name: "Argument Reasoning Comprehension"
task_dir: "."

data_files:
  - sample-data.json
item_properties:
  id_key: "id"
  text_key: "argument"

output_annotation_dir: "annotation_output/"
output_annotation_format: "json"

annotation_schemes:
  # Step 1: Select correct warrant
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: warrant_choice
    description: "Which warrant correctly connects the premise to the claim?"
    labels:
      - "Warrant A"
      - "Warrant B"
    tooltips:
      "Warrant A": "The first warrant option"
      "Warrant B": "The second warrant option"

  # Step 2: Confidence in choice
  - annotation_type: likert
    name: confidence
    description: "How confident are you in your choice?"
    min_value: 1
    max_value: 5
    labels:
      1: "Guessing"
      2: "Somewhat uncertain"
      3: "Moderately confident"
      4: "Confident"
      5: "Very confident"

  # Step 3: Argument quality
  - annotation_type: radio
    name: argument_quality
    description: "How strong is this argument overall?"
    labels:
      - "Very weak"
      - "Weak"
      - "Moderate"
      - "Strong"
      - "Very strong"
    tooltips:
      "Very weak": "The reasoning is fundamentally flawed"
      "Weak": "The argument has significant gaps"
      "Moderate": "The argument is reasonable but not compelling"
      "Strong": "The argument is well-reasoned"
      "Very strong": "The argument is highly compelling"

allow_all_users: true
instances_per_annotator: 50
annotation_per_instance: 3
allow_skip: true
skip_reason_required: false